: Where are you getting that figure from? Most estimates [http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_film_maximum_quality] seems to put the figure in the 4-8 MP range for consumer 35mm film and maybe 10-20 for pro slide film. I've made 18"x12" (S12R) enlargements from my 6MP Nikon D70 and I dare you to tell it apart from a film print. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 22:26, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

: Where are you getting that figure from? Most estimates [http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_film_maximum_quality] seems to put the figure in the 4-8 MP range for consumer 35mm film and maybe 10-20 for pro slide film. I've made 18"x12" (S12R) enlargements from my 6MP Nikon D70 and I dare you to tell it apart from a film print. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 22:26, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

−

:This [http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/olympus.faq.html#ques_L0] shows data from magazine tests of lenses for 35 mm SLRs. They give resolution in lines per mm ranging from 30 to 80 or so. Take 50 as a typical figure. Film is 24 by 36 mm so 1200 * 1800 lines for 2,160,000 pixels, just over 2 Megapixels. Some lenses are much better, especially in the center, but even 100 lines/mm over the whole frame would only give about 8.5 megapixels. Medium format with its 60 by 60 mm negatives is another story, of course, with roughly four times the resolution of 35 mm. [[User:Pashley|Pashley]] 09:25, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

+

:This [http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/olympus.faq.html#ques_L1] shows data from magazine tests of lenses for 35 mm SLRs. They give resolution in lines per mm ranging from 30 to 80 or so. Take 50 as a typical figure. Film is 24 by 36 mm so 1200 * 1800 lines for 2,160,000 pixels, just over 2 Megapixels. Some lenses are much better, especially in the center, but even 100 lines/mm over the whole frame would only give about 8.5 megapixels. Medium format with its 60 by 60 mm negatives is another story, of course, with roughly four times the resolution of 35 mm. [[User:Pashley|Pashley]] 09:25, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

Digital has its place, certainly, but there is no film/digital quality debate (except for printing), especially if you consider as well the even higher quality of medium and large format film. Digital is convenient for the masses, and the ability to control printing is nice. Film has quality and saturation qualities that will keep it around for a long time to come.

Digital has its place, certainly, but there is no film/digital quality debate (except for printing), especially if you consider as well the even higher quality of medium and large format film. Digital is convenient for the masses, and the ability to control printing is nice. Film has quality and saturation qualities that will keep it around for a long time to come.

Luckily, we can use either or both.

Luckily, we can use either or both.

Revision as of 23:28, 20 October 2006

Funny translation

My words: "In the U.S. even taking photographs of sculptures in the vicinity of a federal building will afford you a hassle from a Barney Fife secuirty guard, trying over protect the homeland."

TVerBeek's translation: "this can get you unwelcome attention – or worse – from anxious security personnel."

I thought this was particularlly funny, because I'm still a little upset with the Federal Reserve Bank security guard in Cincinnati, so I refer to him as Barney Fife, since he tracked me down and actually tried to harass me about taking a photo of this rotating sculpture like thing in front of a building adjacent to the FOB and Reserve Bank. TVerBeek's translation is pretty accurate, and I found it quite funny. - Sapphire 17:35, 7 May 2006 (EDT)

Digital vs film

I'm a digital fundamentalist myself, but it'll be some time until digital catches up to large-format film. An 5x7" LF image translates to a sharp 12000x17000 pixel (204 megapixel) image [1], which is way beyond any digital camera out there today. Jpatokal 23:18, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Film

Film, even 35mm, has a quality level of roughly 20 to 25 megapixels. The variable quality of mass printing done by the photofinishing lab is the one bane of print film.

Where are you getting that figure from? Most estimates [2] seems to put the figure in the 4-8 MP range for consumer 35mm film and maybe 10-20 for pro slide film. I've made 18"x12" (S12R) enlargements from my 6MP Nikon D70 and I dare you to tell it apart from a film print. Jpatokal 22:26, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

This [3] shows data from magazine tests of lenses for 35 mm SLRs. They give resolution in lines per mm ranging from 30 to 80 or so. Take 50 as a typical figure. Film is 24 by 36 mm so 1200 * 1800 lines for 2,160,000 pixels, just over 2 Megapixels. Some lenses are much better, especially in the center, but even 100 lines/mm over the whole frame would only give about 8.5 megapixels. Medium format with its 60 by 60 mm negatives is another story, of course, with roughly four times the resolution of 35 mm. Pashley 09:25, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

Digital has its place, certainly, but there is no film/digital quality debate (except for printing), especially if you consider as well the even higher quality of medium and large format film. Digital is convenient for the masses, and the ability to control printing is nice. Film has quality and saturation qualities that will keep it around for a long time to come.